High waist Trousers / Pants: Keeping them up with a belt? Solutions/Rants anybody?

[MikeBravo]

One factor is tummy size.

At Mt Vernon there are life-sized wax replicas of George Wahington, who had a dickens of a time getting clothes that fit. Mainly because he would order from England via letter, asking for clothes that would fit a man of "average size." General Washington was anything but average size. And in researching costumes for the replicas, which are painfully accurate, scholars brought out the General's surviving clothes for careful study, and learned that George had a beer gut, which shoved the (high) waist of his his pants down and bunched them up. The wrinkles from it are still there.

That's new, "forensic tailoring"

 

[TrenchGuy]

That's weird. High-waist pants should stay up pretty good with a belt as they are worn on the natural waist, which is the narrowest point on your body. Thats means they shouldnt fall down, because the area below the waist gets thicker(only if the pants are properly sized, ofc).

Atleast this is the case for me.

 

[PhantomKnight]

I just think they must not be tailored to fit that high. Which is annoying because they are too long to sit on my hips without just looking baggy but too short to sit on my waist without being uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just my body shape. I'll have to visit a tailor one day and be done with this.

 

[resortes805]

That's weird. High-waist pants should stay up pretty good with a belt as they are worn on the natural waist, which is the narrowest point on your body. Thats means they shouldnt fall down, because the area below the waist gets thicker(only if the pants are properly sized, ofc).

Atleast this is the case for me.

Perhaps it's presumptuous, but I'd wager the majority of FL members are wider around the navel (the "vintage" natural waist) than around the hips. Belt wearers will need to cinch tight a la Fred Mertz.

 

[Mario]

Perhaps it's presumptuous, but I'd wager the majority of FL members are wider around the navel (the "vintage" natural waist) than around the hips. Belt wearers will need to cinch tight a la Fred Mertz.

No, I'm not. Speak for yourself...

 

[Widebrim]

I prefer suspenders with Hollywood-waisted trousers; as Matt pointed out, the trousers hang better, and there's no having to re-adjust a belt. High-waisted trousers can look good with a thin belt (see Bogart in The Big Sleep, and Powell in Murder, My Sweet), but often the top of the trousers curl a bit and flip over, a real pain in the neck.

 

[Tomasso]

Perhaps it's presumptuous,

Yes, it would be......

 

[TrenchGuy]

Perhaps it's presumptuous, but I'd wager the majority of FL members are wider around the navel (the "vintage" natural waist) than around the hips. Belt wearers will need to cinch tight a la Fred Mertz.

Natural waist is higher than navel on most people. This is the case for me and I think the "vintage" natural waist is higher than navel. Atleast all my dress pants go up to my natural waist.

 

[The Good]

While we're on about what is considered the "natural waist," throughout the course of the decades, what was considered the most common or "proper" point in which the trousers sit? Was the natural waist always at the naval (belly-button), or was there a point in which that was at the bottom of the ribs? Even higher? When it comes to the general public (of the United States at least), when exactly did most individuals opt to wear their pants below the naval, even if just an inch, was it the 1980s?

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

For me it it a little above my navel. I know that thirties pants can go up to the bottom of the rips. yes
Here is a discussion about this:
How old is your waistline

 

[scotrace]

I like Bellytank's term "nipple scrapers.".